More pro-life laws passed in last two years than in the previous decade, pro-abortion study finds

WASHINGTON, D.C., January 3, 2014 (LifeSiteNews.com) – According to the Guttmacher Institute, a pro-abortion think tank with connections to Planned Parenthood, 2013 was a banner year for pro-life legislation, capping a three-year trend that saw more laws passed limiting abortion than in the previous 10 years combined.

According to the group's year-end report, 205 new abortion restrictions became law in the last three years, 70 in 2013 alone, making last year second only to 2011 as the most pro-life year across the state legislatures since Roe v. Wade.

The report went on to attack four types of pro-life laws that the authors said “dominated the legislative scene during 2013: abortion bans, restrictions on abortion providers, limitations on the provision of medication abortion, and restrictions on coverage of abortion in private health plans.”

Guttmacher’s researchers also complained about increasingly tough safety regulations around the country aimed at holding abortion facilities to the same standards as other outpatient surgical facilities. The report’s authors call the improved safety standards “TRAP laws” (Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers), and say the new regulations are “onerous and irrelevant” and “designed to discourage medical professionals from providing abortion and make it impossible for clinics to remain open.”

A total of eight states tightened restrictions on abortion centers last year, many in the wake of a string of shocking court cases, clinic closures, and undercover videos showing the lax or nonexistent safety standards that appear to be the rule at such facilities – including West Philadelphia’s “House of Horrors,” where abortionist Kermit Gosnell both killed and maimed patients, as well as murdering babies born alive after botched procedures, a crime for which he is now serving three consecutive lifetime sentences.

Another target of Guttmacher’s ire was a trend toward limiting or banning so-called “telemed” abortions, in which abortionists prescribe dangerousabortion drugs by video conference or phone, without a physical exam and with no in-person follow-up.

“Despite the fact that telemedicine is rapidly gaining acceptance as a way to expand access to [abortion],” the group’s authors wrote, “over the course of the year, seven states (Alabama, Indiana, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, and Texas) enacted laws effectively banning the use of telemedicine for medication abortion. In addition, the Iowa Board of Medicine adopted regulations prohibiting the use of telemedicine for medication abortion.”

The group also blasted states for moving to require abortionists to follow FDA guidelines when prescribing abortion-inducing drugs, which limit the prescription of abortifacients to the first 49 days of pregnancy and require a physical examination by a doctor. The reporters called the FDA protocol “outdated” and complained that it was inconvenient for abortion-minded women, both reducing the window of time for them to obtain chemical abortions as well as forcing them to make “an extra trip to the clinic” to ensure their safety.

Other pro-life laws objected to by Guttmacher’s researchers included bans on insurance coverage and public funding for abortion, parental consent laws, waiting periods, ultrasound, and counseling requirements, and even a conscience clause passed in North Carolina allowing health care facilities and medical professionals to refuse to participate in abortions. The group even complained about laws aimed at stopping sex-selection abortions, calling such laws a “problem-and-solution mismatch.”